The following statement “The world and everything in it is unplanned accident, existence is meaningless; the past is irrelevant; nothing matters.” was definitely disproved in the trial. Clearly, the opposition team won the trial. First of all, the proposition team’s witnesses were overly concerned about small details and happenings and were not able to look at the overall, big picture. The dragon and Grendel kept referring to specific examples of events that actually seemed to be unplanned accidents. However, a couple of examples are just not enough to support an idea: ideas are supported by ideas not by examples. This showed the strength of the opposition side. For instance, Ork stated that ugliness also had meaning and significance in the world. Ork explained that without ugliness, people would not demonstrate respect and admiration towards beauty. This is a clear example of an idea proving a bigger idea, that life had meaning. To add on, the witnesses of the proposition side proved themselves to be not trustworthy and fragile. Grendel, a fragile witness from the proposition side, was quite unsure (not the actual person, as the character in the novel) of what to believe. Grendel believed the dragon, the Shaper, and many more. This portrays Grendel as a non-trustworthy witness. Along with Grendel, the dragon also was proven to be a non-trustworthy witness. Dragon clearly contradicted his statement. At first, dragon said that nothing in the world is meaningful. However, he was attacked several times during the trial because he mentioned “to seek out gold and sit on it.” This speech inevitably showed the materialistic side of the dragon and significantly weakened his point. Since the witnesses of the proposition side were only Grendel and the dragon, it can hardly be stated that the proposition side was successful in delivering their point accurately and persuasively. Thus, the opposition side comprehensibly gained victory in the trial.
To add on, the witnesses of the proposition side proved themselves to be not trustworthy and fragile. Grendel, a fragile witness from the proposition side, was quite unsure (not the actual person, as the character in the novel) of what to believe. Grendel believed the dragon, the Shaper, and many more. This portrays Grendel as a non-trustworthy witness. Along with Grendel, the dragon also was proven to be a non-trustworthy witness. Dragon clearly contradicted his statement. At first, dragon said that nothing in the world is meaningful. However, he was attacked several times during the trial because he mentioned “to seek out gold and sit on it.” This speech inevitably showed the materialistic side of the dragon and significantly weakened his point. Since the witnesses of the proposition side were only Grendel and the dragon, it can hardly be stated that the proposition side was successful in delivering their point accurately and persuasively. Thus, the opposition side comprehensibly gained victory in the trial.